| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: SQL Net question...
On Tue, 06 May 1997 14:32:46 -0500, Vijay Damodaran <vijayd_at_nortel.com> wrote:
>I have a database application running on a server in
>subnet A in Dallas. Can a person in subnet B in England
>access the database via SQL*Net?
Answer: Yes. For clarity, let's say that you can have users on
physically distinct LAN's access the same Oracle database using
SQL*Net.
>
>We have developed an application using Developer 2000 which
>must be deployed at both sites. We have the following
>options:
>
> 1. Deploy the GUI on client machines in England
> which will access the database in Dallas via
> SQL*Net. Is this possible?
Yes, you can do this. But if this is a heavy OLTP application, and
you have a large number of users sending all of their data
concurrently down the same link to Dallas, you better have a pretty
hefty pipe.
>
> 2. Create a similar database server in England and
> have enable replication between the 2 databases.
> But, somebody in England says that do replication
> is 6 times more costly (I do not know what she
> means by this - money or time or n/w traffic). Is
> this true?
>
>We feel that using option 1 would make the application very
>slow. But the costs may make option 2 prohibitive.
With this approach, your costs increase (now need *2* servers instead
of one, and you still need the link between Dallas & England to permit
replication of your data). As well, this might take another body to
administer this machine, maybe someone to administer the database,
etc.
>
>any input would be greatly appreciated.
This is known as compromise-city. Only you can determine what is best suited for your environment. If this is a high-latency application with very few (<5) users at the remote site, then I wouldn't feel too bad about going with option #1. I doubt this is the case, though.
If money were no problem (and unforunately it always is), I would seriously look at option #2, simply because this gives each group of users much better performance, and as well, you have some built-in data redundancy which can be put to use in disaster-recovery situations. Lastly, let's say for some reason, the Dallas site goes down. With option #1, everyone is dead. With option #2, the folks in England keep on chugging.
It's a hard question, which ultimately, only you know the details of
what is viable and what is not. Hope this helps, somehow.
>
>Thanks,
>
>VJ.
>
>--
>Vijay Damodaran
>vijayd_at_nortel.com
>Work: (972) 685-8150
Thanks!
Joel
Joel R. Kallman Enabling the Information Age through Oracle Government Network Computing! Bethesda, MD http://govt.us.oracle.com jkallman@us.oracle.com http://www.oracle.com
 |
 |